|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
You don't go far enough in your analysis. Being equally
hard on parties in litigation isn't a sign of lack of
bias. It's a sign of not understanding the case.
In the SCO wars, for example, being equally hard on
SCO and on Novell would have been utterly ridiculous. They were not equal in
their positions, and they were not both
right. Part of covering litigation is calling it right, and that is how you
should analyze -- look to see if predictions
and analysis turns out right in the courts or not. If not, over and over,
something is likely off. And if you look deeper and you find an analyst
consistently hard on the side that eventually wins, you can then draw some
obvious
conclusions.
Another thing that can help you: does the journalist or
analyst take money from one of the parties? Is the article
always favorable or usually favorable to that party? Duh.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 29 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
Such ying-yang treatments aren't necessarily good policy. The unabashed truth,
unvarnished, and without guile, is good policy. Searching for
"offsetting" posts is no substitute for the actual truth. -TH[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
